Rosaline & Baldasar
February 2007
February 2007
 |  |  |  |  |  |
Bravo Guerilla! ‘Rosaline and Baldasar’ takes a new,
wonderful approach to love
02/19/07 @ 03:45:42 pm by archivesadmin
By: Kris Asher
3 1/2 stars (out of 4)
Remakes have always held a controversial spot in my
mind. On the one hand, they merely become exercises in
seeing how close an artist can come to sounding and
looking just like the original. On the other hand, even the
best ones owe a great debt to the original.
Theatrical runs are a bit different though, due to the limited
number of productions at any one particular time. In fact,
plays are meant to have numerous repeat performances.
After all, without repeated “remakes” very few people would
have the chance to see varying versions of “Romeo and
Juliet.”
wonderful approach to love
02/19/07 @ 03:45:42 pm by archivesadmin
By: Kris Asher
3 1/2 stars (out of 4)
Remakes have always held a controversial spot in my
mind. On the one hand, they merely become exercises in
seeing how close an artist can come to sounding and
looking just like the original. On the other hand, even the
best ones owe a great debt to the original.
Theatrical runs are a bit different though, due to the limited
number of productions at any one particular time. In fact,
plays are meant to have numerous repeat performances.
After all, without repeated “remakes” very few people would
have the chance to see varying versions of “Romeo and
Juliet.”
I mention the Shakespeare classic for two reasons: 1) City Stage is running its own version right now, with a unique take on the original
(see the review in last week’s issue); and 2) because Guerilla Theatre is running “Rosaline and Baldasar,” a spin-off of the classic tale.
What a spin-off it is! Everyone going into the play expecting to see a tragic story may be disappointed, but only if they don’t have a sense
of humor. Even though the play utilizes the tale of the star-crossed lovers as its basis, none of the original’s sense of tragedy appears
in “Rosaline and Baldasar.” If anything, Marlowe Moore, who wrote the brilliant script, seems to be implying that the tragedy which
overflows in Shakespeare’s version appears a little off kilter. Once realized that the tragic lovers are just overwrought teenagers, it’s
hard to get over how melodramatic they actually are.
That melodrama is illustrated perfectly at the beginning of the play when Romeo, spurned by his first true love, Rosaline, walks around
literally wailing his despair. Taylor Kowalski portrays Romeo as a spoiled brat, not used to real emotion but rather the type of love that
suits drama queens. Rosaline (Susan Auten), in turn, falls for Baldasar (Shane Bates), a country Montague visiting Verona in search of
a wife.
Moore cleverly uses the famous masquerade ball as the backdrop for the chance meeting between the two new lovers, and
appropriately begins the romance with a case of mistaken identity, which operates throughout the play. This mistake runs alongside
other familiar Shakespearean devices, but Moore applies them to show how such situations are more comic than tragic.
A good example of this humor would be a seemingly similar scene involving the desperate maiden who seeks a friar’s help with a
potion. Whereas Juliet received a potion that made her appear dead, Rosaline gets a quite different potion from Friar Fard (Mark Perry).
Perry’s friar is one who constantly battles his own lustful desires (sometimes not so successfully), and as a result, has on hand a
potion which quells one’s yearnings. So rather than death, the audience is presented with a case of purposeful frigidity.
In fact, even though all the actors performed perfectly in their roles—Bri Lindsey and Zack Simcoe as Ferula and Orlando, two servants
who experience their own humorous, though less poetic romance; Catherine Seeley as Rosaline’s domineering mother; and John
Krevens and Joel Hodge Jr. as Lord Capulet and Lord Montague—Moore’s script is the real reason to see a fresh interpretation.
Rosaline, when asked about her evening with Baldasar, responds with an ironic hint that she, like her plans, had been “laid, but did not
figure love.” And later, during the potion scene with the friar, he instructs her that the potion would only work temporarily, and she should
learn that “love must die naturally … in marriage.” Lines such as these abound throughout the play, keeping the dialogue at a brisk and
irreverent pace.
Tony Moore had the unenviable task of directing the play in a way that maintained the pace. Not only did he maintain it, but most of his
direction emphasized the rapid-fire dialogue, highlighting the action through the placing of characters and well-utilized props.
This, however, brings me around to my one small complaint. Since the play was broken down into numerous, brief scenes, and the
stage is extremely limited in its space, accommodations had to be made for the transitions. Though most of it was handled as
creatively as it could be—and I applaud the way in which the company made the scene changes—I wondered if there could have been
compression between scenes. For example, after the tenth time the bed was wheeled in and out for the bedroom scenes, I began to
speculate whether half of the stage could have been left in darkness in order to leave some props in place. Seemingly, the props would
not need to be moved as much.
It goes to the credit of the production, though, considering that is its biggest flaw—oh, and that it was too short, even at 90 minutes.
Leaving a production wishing it had been longer means someone’s doing something right.
(see the review in last week’s issue); and 2) because Guerilla Theatre is running “Rosaline and Baldasar,” a spin-off of the classic tale.
What a spin-off it is! Everyone going into the play expecting to see a tragic story may be disappointed, but only if they don’t have a sense
of humor. Even though the play utilizes the tale of the star-crossed lovers as its basis, none of the original’s sense of tragedy appears
in “Rosaline and Baldasar.” If anything, Marlowe Moore, who wrote the brilliant script, seems to be implying that the tragedy which
overflows in Shakespeare’s version appears a little off kilter. Once realized that the tragic lovers are just overwrought teenagers, it’s
hard to get over how melodramatic they actually are.
That melodrama is illustrated perfectly at the beginning of the play when Romeo, spurned by his first true love, Rosaline, walks around
literally wailing his despair. Taylor Kowalski portrays Romeo as a spoiled brat, not used to real emotion but rather the type of love that
suits drama queens. Rosaline (Susan Auten), in turn, falls for Baldasar (Shane Bates), a country Montague visiting Verona in search of
a wife.
Moore cleverly uses the famous masquerade ball as the backdrop for the chance meeting between the two new lovers, and
appropriately begins the romance with a case of mistaken identity, which operates throughout the play. This mistake runs alongside
other familiar Shakespearean devices, but Moore applies them to show how such situations are more comic than tragic.
A good example of this humor would be a seemingly similar scene involving the desperate maiden who seeks a friar’s help with a
potion. Whereas Juliet received a potion that made her appear dead, Rosaline gets a quite different potion from Friar Fard (Mark Perry).
Perry’s friar is one who constantly battles his own lustful desires (sometimes not so successfully), and as a result, has on hand a
potion which quells one’s yearnings. So rather than death, the audience is presented with a case of purposeful frigidity.
In fact, even though all the actors performed perfectly in their roles—Bri Lindsey and Zack Simcoe as Ferula and Orlando, two servants
who experience their own humorous, though less poetic romance; Catherine Seeley as Rosaline’s domineering mother; and John
Krevens and Joel Hodge Jr. as Lord Capulet and Lord Montague—Moore’s script is the real reason to see a fresh interpretation.
Rosaline, when asked about her evening with Baldasar, responds with an ironic hint that she, like her plans, had been “laid, but did not
figure love.” And later, during the potion scene with the friar, he instructs her that the potion would only work temporarily, and she should
learn that “love must die naturally … in marriage.” Lines such as these abound throughout the play, keeping the dialogue at a brisk and
irreverent pace.
Tony Moore had the unenviable task of directing the play in a way that maintained the pace. Not only did he maintain it, but most of his
direction emphasized the rapid-fire dialogue, highlighting the action through the placing of characters and well-utilized props.
This, however, brings me around to my one small complaint. Since the play was broken down into numerous, brief scenes, and the
stage is extremely limited in its space, accommodations had to be made for the transitions. Though most of it was handled as
creatively as it could be—and I applaud the way in which the company made the scene changes—I wondered if there could have been
compression between scenes. For example, after the tenth time the bed was wheeled in and out for the bedroom scenes, I began to
speculate whether half of the stage could have been left in darkness in order to leave some props in place. Seemingly, the props would
not need to be moved as much.
It goes to the credit of the production, though, considering that is its biggest flaw—oh, and that it was too short, even at 90 minutes.
Leaving a production wishing it had been longer means someone’s doing something right.